1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 110,419,838 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from October 2, 2016 to August 21, 2020.

1. The argument related to limitation of liability among the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff is not significantly different from the argument at the court below, and the first instance court's decision on limitation of liability is just even if all evidence are comprehensively examined.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of the liability for damages, each of the corresponding items of the Schedule of Calculation of Compensation for Damages, and the period for calculation convenience shall, in principle, be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded.

At the time of the accident, the amount of damages shall be calculated at the rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct interim interest.

It shall be rejected that the parties' arguments are not separately explained.

[Ground of Recognition] The result of a dispute or significant fact-finding, Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 7 through 14, 16 through 20, 22, Eul's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, 10 (including paper numbers), He hospital head of the first instance court, I hospital head, J hospital head, J hospital head, Seoul National University Hospital head, and K Hospital head of the first instance court's entrustment of physical examination and fact-finding results, results of physical examination of the L hospital head of this court, M Hospital head of this court's entrustment of physical examination, experience and whole purport of oral argument

A. Personal information 1) Personal information: The income and operating period indicated in the “basic matters” table for calculation of the amount of damages in attached Form 2: from around 1997, the Plaintiff was operating a restaurant or working as a kitchen.

In full view of the Plaintiff’s career, age, health status, and the details of deposit of Plaintiff’s account payment between January 2016 and September 2016, the immediately preceding the instant accident, etc., the Plaintiff is a male with 44 cooking and food service experience of not less than 10 years from among “13. Occupational category (middle, career year), career, number of years, gender, wage of work hours, and number of workers,” as sought by the Plaintiff.